yeah

one workers party is kind of the point lmao its called the dictatorship of the proletariat for a reason

👏 No Party State 👏

❤ the honesty

United front of lazy tards with no incentive to improve lead by the benevolent supreme leader Synopsis

Depends how one defines socialist

how would you define a socialist

its not really "socialist" per-se in the typical understanding of the word but as far as branches under the wider umbrella of "workers own the means of production and abolishing capitalism" i'd assume he basically is referring to anarcho-syndicalism which for sure would loathe the idea of a single party since it kind of replaces the concept of "party" altogether with union syndicates.
so my assumption (again just assuming, could be wrong) is he'd be in favor of replacing the entire political framework with just inter-union communications where the unions themselves are pseudo-parties but without a centralized state apparatus that parties participate in a fixed environment politically in.
not really my personal beliefs or my own preferred philosophy by any means but i think that's likely what @Yuzzy is getting at.

Administrative government should be local community with laws and other policies made by groups of similar communities Keep states for things that require cross group communication but let political power be as localized as possible.

Yeah thats about what Im getting at

so in the reality of a world where the cold war happened, we saw just how dedicated capitalist states like the USA would be to the destruction of socialist states, how could a socialist territory organized primarily in a local manner like you're talking about reasonably respond to a non-local existential phenomenon like a belligerent foreign state dedicating a LOT of time, money, and manpower to defeating this organization?

I agree to some degree but I think for reasons like what @americana points out it's impossible in a modern environment for something like that to exist where it'd be faced with immediate geopolitical tension. Even realpolitik that smartly navigates geopolitics through careful semantics and relations (i.e. Yugoslavia, Egypt under Nasser, etc.) only goes so far as to create sustainability. The economics of sustainability in this regard are virtually impossible without some level of centralized authority. I think this is why I personally talk about a "no party state"; in an ideal sense there should not be a distinction between a state and its party - if hierarchy must exist, then hierarchy should exist as a natural part of a community and not as an arbitrary distinction.
Politics just should not exist in a country on a macro level because a state should handle things well enough that people accept the state as a natural extension of their community in the same way a tribe accepts a chieftan or an army accepts a general.
Once you have people debating over social issues that begin to usurp caring about the community as a neutral monolith or form of syndicate you've basically already lost.
This is one thing I think is a huge benefit about countries like China over the US. I'm not a China stan by any means but the system relative to the people where the vast majority of the population doesn't care what the government does or says and just considers them a necessary structure so long as they receive necessary means of survival is far superior to the US model of politics where instead of passing medical reform we first have to debate if it alongside merits of what people think matter on twitter and in the NYT editorial column.
While I understand the common criticism that "a no party state is just a one party state with a whitelabel", I don't think that's really true. It's more than just arbitrary branding or something; the point of a no party state is that the party IS the state and vice-versa - the party isn't serving the state and people are not placed on rolls within a party, nor is there a "party platform" or similar. There is only the community and to ensure the survival of the community there are naturally roles which are meant to be fulfilled and those roles are filled not under the guise of arbitrary ideology but instead under necessity

Them commie leaders turned out to be sociopaths tho.

The term socialism is shamelessly thrown around and abused. Even saddams party was called the socialist ba'ath party lol
Leftists on this forum aint much different. They fantasize about their tribe being the ruling party and as part of their sick twisted fantasies shill for dictators around thre world to get a reaction online.

Socilism is state providing accomodation, education, healthcare and adequate living expenses. There is a way to achieve this by using progressive tax brackets. Can keep a free market and incentive for people to work hard. I dono, something like sweden but instead of taxing everyone who makes over 80k 80% move the cap to 300k and dont tax people who make less than 30k at all

Be protected by a larger state which sympathises with them

i cant even begin to explain just how inconsistent this is with your previous posts itt

Even saddams party was called the socialist ba'ath party lol

more like the socialist based party

you're describing a welfare state

socialism is defined as a social ownership of the means of production, whether by syndicate, state, or anarchist

then again frankito doesnt seem like an ideologically coherent poster

very single issue

dont know why im engaging

this is a laughable response my guy im sorry

ktt2.com/frankito-reynoldss-enters-a-thread-32499841

No sarcasm why do you think that

@krishna_bound I think this is why I personally talk about a "no party state"; in an ideal sense there should not be a distinction between a state and its party - if hierarchy must exist, then hierarchy should exist as a natural part of a community and not as an arbitrary distinction.
Politics just should not exist in a country on a macro level because a state should handle things well enough that people accept the state as a natural extension of their community in the same way a tribe accepts a chieftan or an army accepts a general.

Love this

I am alking about a compromise. That's why you need a government with a structure that allows both sides and doesn't just give power to a specific tribe.
My post simply meant that dictators use the promises that socialism brings to get their own way.

Imma have some dinner and I’ll write it for you afterwards sorry

What’s your idea of a “state?” Just want to make sure our definitions are in line for this exercise

He was quoting me there so idk if you want me to answer that or if you were asking him based on that vs his prior answers

capitalism is demonic